Stanford Rape Case: Victim Letter Going Viral

[birthday cat]

I can't be bothered with refuting everything in your misinformed straw man argument but I will say that it is not nitpicking to recognize the difference between raping an unconscious women and fingering a women who may or may not have been conscious. Remember that the alleged victim's sister left her shortly before this incident occurred because the sister didn't think the alleged victim was very drunk - suggesting reasonable doubt regarding the drunk 19 year old Turner's ability to recognize if the alleged victim was almost unconscious or unconscious. Wait... you can't remember that because you haven't read anything and don't know any of the facts in this case.

 

[CaptainS]

Two people kissing, two people leaving a bar together, two people agreeing to sexual activity, both are drunk - only the guy is charged with a crime.

All she has to do to maintain her reputation and be treated as an innocent princess is destroy a man's life - and she does it without a second thought. Wretched and evil.

 

[ovloV]

I can't be bothered with refuting everything in your misinformed straw man argument but I will say that it is not nitpicking to recognize the difference between raping an unconscious women and fingering a women who may or may not have been conscious. Remember that the alleged victim's sister left her shortly before this incident occurred because the sister didn't think the alleged victim was very drunk - suggesting reasonable doubt that the drunk 19 year old kid could recognize that she was almost unconscious or unconscious. Wait... you can't remember that because you haven't read anything and don't know any of the facts in this case.

There's no strawman, it's the law, as it is written, right here http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-289.html

(d) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.  As used in this subdivision, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:

(1) Was unconscious or asleep.

(2) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.

(3) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud in fact.

(4) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.

(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

And then a bit further down:
(1) “Sexual penetration” is the act of causing the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of any person or causing another person to so penetrate the defendant's or another person's genital or anal opening for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or by any unknown object. - See more at:

You stick a finger in a drunk girl, three years. That's the law. It may or may not be fair, it HAS to be applied fairly. You can't give Stanford students light sentences because they go to Stanford. Either you change the law or you give him more time.

 

[CaptainS]

(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

She wasn't unconscious at the time of the fingering, she gave consent. She was blacked out later when they were dry humping (no penetration).

He was kissing her and stopped to ask if it was okay to finger her and she said yes. That's not being "prevented from resisting". Since he stopped and asked her if it was okay first, that's actually meeting the high standard of "affirmative consent".

You aren't bothering to read the facts of the case.

 

[birthday cat]

ovloV - You are talking about punishment and 3 year sentences but that has nothing to do with what I called you out for. I'm not going down the rat hole of continuing to debate you when you aren't countering anything I said.

If you want to research something then find a transcript of the testimony from the bicyclists who confronted Turner. That is what we are missing and I'm assuming that is how the jury determined Turner was guilty because there was no other evidence.

I think there is a good chance that Turner is guilty of sexual assault (not rape) but I'm just not a "guilty until proven innocent" kind of guy, especially when it comes to sexual assault and rape because women have a tendency to make false accusations for these crime.

And even if he is guilty, the girl's letter and the media have distorted this case to the point of ridiculousness. They have made it appear as rape and a rape conviction even though it clearly wasn't rape. There is also the hypocritical notion that we can't hold the girl accountable for her actions because she was drunk but (1) we should hold Turner accountable for his actions even though he was drunk, (2) we should hold Turner accountable for being too drunk to recognize how drunk the girl was, and (3) we should hold Turner accountable for not recognizing how drunk the girl was even though her own sister didn't think she was drunk a short time before the incident happened (possibly as soon as 15 minutes before the incident took place). I don't even know how to describe this... it's more than a double standard... do we call it a triple standard... it's ridiculous.

 

[iknowexactly]

As a licensed mental health professional, what amazes me is no one seems to have discussed there is an additional mental state apart from conscious and unconscious -- namely alcoholic blackout -- during which she could-- and according to him she DID -- agree she liked the sexual contact.

It's Important that there's a huge difference in the usages of the term "black out" . It can mean unconscious and more or less non-responsive, or the classic case of a drunk person who doesn't remember what they did.

Of course it is absurd to fault a guy who fucks an overtly eager drunk girl simply because she later forgets being eager. The burden (on only men of course) could be taken to an extreme where one would have to have a psychological evaluation done on a potential sex partner before one really "knows" the girl is "consenting. "

She is responsible for her behavior during a memory type blackout where externally she is signaling agreement just like a drunk driver who plows into innocents.

If this is the case, how can he be at fault because she later forgets her consent?!

She made a huge mistake admitting she doesn't remember anything. She apparently has no idea if she consented.

It cannot be a person's responsibility to give everyone they have sex with a blood alcohol test.

Aside from the issue of personal responsibility is the unstated sex-negative presumption that when you have sex with someone you've done something BAD to them. This strange puritanical attitude is what makes many other cultures wonder at why Anericans are obsessed with the sex lives of politicians.

It's possible her incredibly self indulgent and verbose complaints highlight a personality that may be more prone to blackouts.

 

[ovloV]

(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

She wasn't unconscious at the time of the fingering, she gave consent. She was blacked out later when they were dry humping (no penetration).

He was kissing her and stopped to ask if it was okay to finger her and she said yes. That's not being "prevented from resisting". Since he stopped and asked her if it was okay first, that's actually meeting the high standard of "affirmative consent".

You aren't bothering to read the facts of the case.

I have read the facts about the case, he was CONVICTED of assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, sexual penetration of an intoxicated person and sexual penetration of an unconscious person. Whether or not the conviction is fair, what the definition of consent is is when people are drunk, are a separate issue, and it was the basis for his defense. He was still convicted. The problem is that if you, me, or the large majority of this forum gets convicted of the same three felonies, we go to jail for a much longer time. The judge showed leniancy for him because he goes to Stanford and is going places. This is the same kind of shit that lets elitists run the world: the same rules don't apply to them. Unless you fit the same profile as this guy, I have no idea why you think rich elites should get off easier than the rest of us.

Again, the law probably needs to be changed. I think DUI laws are retarded, .08 is a ridiculously low threshold for drunkenness, but if I learned that some rich Harvard shmuck was only fined 100$ and got 10 hours of community service for blowing a .09 when I would get the book thrown at me, I'd be pissed as hell.

 

[Horus]

Exactly iknowexactly. In the same way that if I drove drunk and hurt someone, I am still responsible even if I don't remember it. Drunkeness doesn't remove intent.

 

[Renton1875]

(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

She wasn't unconscious at the time of the fingering, she gave consent. She was blacked out later when they were dry humping (no penetration).

He was kissing her and stopped to ask if it was okay to finger her and she said yes. That's not being "prevented from resisting". Since he stopped and asked her if it was okay first, that's actually meeting the high standard of "affirmative consent".

You aren't bothering to read the facts of the case.

I have read the facts about the case, he was CONVICTED of assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, sexual penetration of an intoxicated person and sexual penetration of an unconscious person. Whether or not the conviction is fair, what the definition of consent is is when people are drunk, are a separate issue, and it was the basis for his defense. He was still convicted. The problem is that if you, me, or the large majority of this forum gets convicted of the same three felonies, we go to jail for a much longer time. The judge showed leniancy for him because he goes to Stanford and is going places. This is the same kind of shit that lets elitists run the world: the same rules don't apply to them. Unless you fit the same profile as this guy, I have no idea why you think rich elites should get off easier than the rest of us.

Again, the law probably needs to be changed. I think DUI laws are retarded, .08 is a ridiculously low threshold for drunkenness, but if I learned that some rich Harvard shmuck was only fined 100$ and got 10 hours of community service for blowing a .09 when I would get the book thrown at me, I'd be pissed as hell.

The bolded section is, in it's absurdity, the only criminal act committed in this case.

Should never even have made it to court.



Yeh TLOZ, think you called it.

 

[_Cicero]

I dunno bros, lots to chew on here. When I read the girl's testimony, the idea that she blacked out right after arriving at a party and didn't remember anything until she was at the hospital was a huge red flag. I've gotten piss drunk numerous times. Never so that i blacked out an entire night. Later she says "he didn't even ask my name until he had me naked..." Totally inconsistent.

On the other hand, it's unlikely he asked if he could finger her. That didn't happen. The two witnesses give the girl's case cred. I can't imagine running away from two Swedish grad students when I'm hooking up with a girl willing to come back to my dorm. Could be that these were two white knights hypersensitized to rape culture, and saw two drunk people going at it and decided to intervene. hard to believe it would have happened if they didn't think the girl was too drunk to consent, or that it didn't look super suspicious. And if she was sober enough and a willing partner, hard to believe she wouldn't have said "it's fine".

I suspect the court more-or-less got this right. The judge would have substantiated this, but also realized there was some doubt given that they were both drunk and both probably invented their own versions of what happened. Not OK to hook up with a too drunk girl though. I can understand those that think 6 months was light though.

 

[Peregrine]

If he was totally in the right, why does his dad make a statement about a "20 minute mistake"? If he was completely innocent, I'd be flipping unholy shit about a miscarriage of justice.

Hey, maybe he's innocent. But I've known guys who saw nothing wrong with fucking an unconscious chick. I could see it either way. The jury probably got it right.

 

[eradicator]

the bikers were actual Swedes?

 

[Oilrig]

It's weird to me that leftist feminists encourage young women to get drunk and have sex with as many guys as possible to explore their bodies and sexualities. Yet, when young women take their advice and bang random strangers they're quick to cry rape and crucify the men as sexual predators. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Soma]

It's weird to me that leftist feminists encourage young women to get drunk and have sex with as many guys as possible to explore their bodies and sexualities. Yet, when young women take their advice and bang random strangers they're quick to cry rape and crucify the men as sexual predators. Can't have it both ways.

On the contrary, promoting both is a win-win for feminists: destruction of the nuclear family and sending men to jail for normal sexual behavior. They don't actually care about the safety of young (attractive, heterosexual) women.

 

[Guitarman]

Bearing in mind the trouble that the forum, the Roosh speaking tour and the meet-ups this year had due to the ridiculous "rape advocate" label applied to Roosh after his satirical thought experiment " How To Stop Rape". And the bad publicity and protests that came out of this nonsense.

Is it a good idea that cases like this should even be discussed on the forum?

As for whether it was rape or assault, consensual or not, we will never know. One can speculate all you like but none of this will change the outcome of this or subsequent cases.

Also, was the discussion of rape cases not banned after the meet up trouble? Is that ban still in effect?

To my mind the take home message from this case is don't let yourself get into these situations. Don't bang comatose or near comatose chicks.

 

[Days of Broken Arrows]

It's weird to me that leftist feminists encourage young women to get drunk and have sex with as many guys as possible to explore their bodies and sexualities. Yet, when young women take their advice and bang random strangers they're quick to cry rape and crucify the men as sexual predators. Can't have it both ways.

Is it weird? Or is it SO NORMAL YOU JUST BLEW YOU MIND!!!!!!!

I've said this on the board many time, but I'll repeat it. Why? Because if an older guy had told me what I am about to write (again) when I was 22, life would have made a lot more sense. And it would have been easier for me. And here it is:

Men live for tangible accomplishments while women live for relationships. To achieve the first, you have to have little drama. The second is fraught with drama. This is a crucial difference between men and women.

Men were meant to build civilizations. Hence their beards, which protect them from the outdoor elements. Women were built to deal with babies. Hence their breasts which were meant for nursing.

All of this is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, but we were (mis)taught otherwise in school, so it's easy to miss what's right in front of our faces. You can dress us up and put us in colleges and offices, but you cannot change our basic nature.

There is no bigger drama than dealing with babies. There is no more important bond than the mother-child bond. (Again, we're told otherwise about this.)

So what happens when a girl becomes a woman but doesn't have a baby to fill that relationship space in her psyche? She invents drama!

And this is what is happening more and more because more and more women are barren. The cry of a baby (which is a pretty damned dramatic thing) has been replaced by the cries of men and women's parents in courtrooms since women have created drama to replace the real drama that should have been in their lives.

Once you start seeing life this way, the "wear miniskirt/get drunk/scream rape" paradigm makes perfect sense. It's a replacement for the crying of children.

It takes while for us to "get" what our grandfathers instinctively knew. Women are built different than men, so what seems insane to us is par the course for them. And vice-versa. Most women think a lot of obsessive male pursuits are insane, but that's what built everything around you! That refrigerator got there because someone was weird and spent a lot of time alone in a basement tinkering.

The next time anyone reflexively thinks "But men and women are alike!" ask yourself why you need to shave your face and they don't. Why did nature intend that and what does it signify in the larger sense?

 

[BortimusPrime]

I find it suspicious that the cyclists were already able to determine that the girl looked unconscious before they approached, if the couple was making out behind a dumpster.

 

[Fast Eddie]

Meh. Keep the fuck away from white bitches. Problem solved.

 

[Sp5]

I've tried rape cases, even got real rapists off.

I wrote a post on defending against false rape charges: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-29563.html

This does not look like a false charge to me. It's on the border between drunken poor judgment and predation.

The witnesses intervening and chasing the guy, her state, plus whatever lacerations and contusions she had seem to be the key pieces of evidence.

Jury convicted after strong instructions on presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt. Hard to question verdict without hearing all evidence.

Prosecutor's argument that he was face of campus sexual assault may have been improper, could lead to reversal, but usually cured by judge's admonition.

Sentence was lenient, after 15 years comparing boys from elite colleges and townies in court, I have no doubt that a townie working at McD's would have been hammered with years in state prison, not months in county lock up.

 

[The Lizard of Oz]

Sp5,

How could the reasonable doubt standard have possibly been met in this case?

You've got two very drunk kids. They leave the party voluntarily, with obvious intentions. The girl is clearly conscious and able to consent at that point.

There is no "rape", there is no intercourse. He stuck a few fingers in her vagina. There is absolutely no reason to believe it was not consensual, no evidence. The girl then passes out from drunkenness, the guy himself is about to vomit.

The lacerations on elbows etc are obviously because they were stumbling drunk and falling down. What's so hard to understand about that?

Please read that full "victim statement". It is a disgusting and histrionic document full of the most obvious and shameless lies.

Finally, the idea that being registered as a sex offender for life and having your life ruined as a result of a sloppy drunken hookup that wasn't even a hookup is "lenient" is an absurd one. It may be true that someone else might have gotten an even longer sentence but that doesn't make this sentence, and the conviction itself, any more justified.

It's terrible, and one has to hope against hope that the conviction is reversed on appeal, although that's never likely.